This is how I'm starting every single C++ (project | assignment | job) from now on.

I don't see a winner in banning biological males from women's sports. The transgender cult simply lost to the bigger and far more dangerous cult of feminism.
If sports was logical and equal, men must necessarily compete against women in all sports and at all levels. Since men are stronger than women, it necessarily means women cannot compete in sports period, thus excluding women, which is fair.

The segregation of sports by biological sex should only occur in societies where feminism is rejected and women recognize the general superiority of the man.

Of course, the rules of sports ought to be determined by the capitalists responsible for the competition (if privately operated). Thus, it would be perfectly ethical for females to compete against transwomen (males) if the capitalist wants it that way.
Individuals can thus dissent by invoking their right to non-association by boycotting the competition. Or to invest in their own competition where biological sex is observed.
If the competition is funded by the state (shouldn't be), the "Occam's Razor" of (chromosomes -> sex) should be observed.

Charged for giving free electricity to "the grid."
Green logic.

Liberal white women are the most dangerous political force in the west.
Them and their death cult of hatred should be segregated from the rest of civil society.

"It's Dajooz, it's the Jooz"
Of course it's the Jews, but it takes a certain amount of mental illness to think killing babies is okay.

If the Jews told me to murder someone, and I went and murdered that person, it's my fault, not the Jew.

Enjoy Stakeholder Capitalism

Caption this 🙃

Every time I look at Western governments what I see is like a garden of Eden, except there's a whole truckload of Eves continuously doing whatever the serpent tells them to do.

The only way for the West to compete with China in the long term, is to adopt Chinese-style anarcho-capitalist economic policies such as:
- Abolishing environmental regulations.
- Abolishing building codes.
- Abolishing OHS.
- Abolishing patent law.

Intellectual property is the biggest hindrance to economic growth. In China competition is ruthless.
The moment someone invents something, someone copies it and makes it better and cheaper, resulting in low cost and superior products.
Patents and copyright doesn't incentivize innovation whatsoever.

Encore.

This is not right, the parents reserve the rights to deny their child ANY medication for ANY reason.
The only religion here is medical fascism. Inaction is inherently amoral.

The Axiom of Inaction can be easily derived using first order logic.

1. Inaction is the negation of action.
2. Negation of action is an action that does not exist.
3. Non-existent objects cannot exhibit characteristics.
4. Morality and its negation are subsets of characteristics.
5. The complement of (morality ⋃ immorality) is by definition "amoral."
Hence. Inaction is amoral.

It's not immoral to let a baby starve. It is however immoral to steal food from someone else to feed the baby.

Conjecture:
The natural enemy of inaction is the Karen or the activist.
These types will conjure up action to negate perceived injustices or "things they don't like" that arise from government inaction.

This is a valid critique of libertarianism as these personality types will inevitably increase the size of government and introduce disorder to the system.

To sustain a libertarian system, these people must either then be:
1. Genocided (not applicable since murder is immoral).
2. Made to be politically irrelevant through an anti-democratic Monarchy guided by inaction.

I don't understand why a "new law" is required for this.
Shouldn't laws be repealed to attain the same ends?

Keep in mind this whole ordeal was over $1 Sauce. Kind of reminds me of this.

Follow @RealVincentJames